Boies v. Hartford & New Haven Railroad
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit against the defendants, in one count as common carriers and in another as warehousemen, for two bales of cotton ; brought to the Superior Court in Middlesex County, and tried on the general issue, with notice, closed to the court, before Phelps, J. The following facts were found hy the court.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit against the defendants, in one count as common carriers and in another as warehousemen, for two bales of cotton ; brought to the Superior Court in Middlesex County, and tried on the general issue, with notice, closed to the court, before Phelps, J. The following facts were found hy the court. On the 7th day of January, 1869, the plaintiff purchased in New York eighteen bales of cotton', which were forwarded by steamer to New Haven, and thence by the defendants’ cars to Middletown. The whole number of bales were received by the defendants on their arrival at Middletown, and by them…
1Opinion of the CourtPark, J.
The defendants complain of the following ruling of the court below, “ that inasmuch as the missing goods were in fact deposited by them in their warehouse, the defendants, to deliver themselves from responsibility for the goods, were bound to prove either a delivery to the plaintiff or his agent or servant, or that they had exercised ordinary .care in keeping them after they received them; and that under the circumstances the burden was not on the plaintiff to show the manner and particulars of the defendants’ negligence by moans of which the loss occurred.”
The defendants concede their…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Davis & Son v. HurtSupreme Court of Alabama · 1896
- Holt Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Arthur Jordan Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1900
- Hildebrand v. CarrollWisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
- Thomas Canning Co. v. Pere Marquette Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1920
- Chicago, St. Louis & New Orleans Railroad v. MossMississippi Supreme Court · 1883
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.